Beemer v. McCoy
City of New York Municipal Court
McAdam, Ch. J. Where it is sought to stay the prosecution of an action because the costs of a former action have not been paid, it must appear from the record that the actions are identical (10 Weekly Dig. 199; 10 Reporter, 152; 9 Daly, 259). The plaintiff swears that he holds two notes of the defendant of the same date and amount, and that the $500 note included in the former action is not the one sued upon here. The motion for a stay will, therefore, be denied. No costs.
1Opinion of the Court
In Dare v. Murphy (Mew York Supreme Ct., Daily Register, March 1, 1887), Judge Andrews said:
There is no absolute right in a defendant to demand the judgment of the court forbidding the prosecution of a, second suit until the costs of a former action are paid. It is an equity depending generally upon the circumstances of each particular case and addressed very much to the sound discretion' of the judge to$ whom • the application is made *297(McMahon v. Life Ins. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. 30). The cases in which orders have been made staying proceedings in an action until the costs of a former action have…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Barton v. . SpeisNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Wood v. . SwiftNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- McMahon v. Mutual Benefit Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- People v. SturtevantThe Superior Court of New York City · 1855